from the the-system-always-lives-on dept

Cross-posted from

I don't particularly like the NCAA and I enjoy their legal difficulties as much as the next guy. As a devout college sports fan, the usually arbitrary and always backward business side of the NCAA (including the affiliated schools and "non-profit" bowl associations) causes me great consternation.

Apparently, the incomparable Charles P. Pierce shares my disdain for the lumbering excuse for a fair and credible sanctioning body that currently governs collegiate athletics.

In a sharp Grantland piece, Pierce revisits the Ed O'Bannon-led class-action case against the NCAA and video game manufacturer EA over their combined efforts to profit in perpetuity from the likenesses of unpaid "student ath-o-letes." (Take it away Eric Cartman!) But I think Pierce is overselling the extent to which a possible O'Bannon victory would really change the college sports landscape....

By way of background, Ed O'Bannon is a former UCLA and pre-Brooklyn Nets basketball player who had retired from the game. It came to his attention that the NCAA had licensed his likeness to EA to make approximately a gajillion dollars selling video games featuring "classic" teams like O'Bannon's 1996 UCLA Bruins. O'Bannon felt -- and he was later joined by basketball legends like Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson, who were stunned to learn a) that they were in a video game and b) what a video game was -- that this seemed a little far afield of putting his likeness on a calendar in 1995, which is what he reasonably assumed he was authorizing the NCAA to do when he signed away his rights to profit from the marketing of his collegiate career when he was all of 18 years old.

O'Bannon filed suit in 2009, alleging that the NCAA violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when they forced him to sign a waiver giving up his rights to profit from representations of his collegiate career. As Robert Wheel of SBNation explains:

O'Bannon is alleging that if the NCAA didn't force him to sign this contract, then he could have gotten money from someone else (say, an EA competitor) to use his likeness. Thus, it essentially fixed the price of using his image at zero. Even if you consider players' scholarships adequate payment for their services, this still artificially depresses how much they're paid. If a judge agrees, the waiver would be considered an illegal restraint of trade under the act.

And now O'Bannon and his lawyers are seeking to certify a class of all former athletes used in this way for a trial next year (courts have held that maintaining the amateur status of current student athletes is a laudable enough goal to justify the NCAA robbing current athletes of the fruits of their potentially debilitating labor, so this case only deals with former athletes).

Which brings us to Charles Pierce's piece. You see, Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California just denied the defendants' motion to end the class certification process on the grounds that the plaintiffs have changed their legal strategy. Judge Wilken basically asked, "So?" and the defendants had no response. Pierce contends that this legal setback for the NCAA, along with recent NCAA retreats on the issue of stipends for players, portends an extinction-level event for college sports.

By and large, the people charged with running our various sports conglomerates have proven through history to be as incapable of taking the long view of their own survival as the average brachiosaurus was. They blunder around, eating whatever comes under their noses, trampling the scenery and hooting loudly into the wind. They never see the meteor coming. …

For the NCAA to survive in its current form, it has to win this lawsuit or get the lawsuit dismissed. There’s no third alternative. The NCAA can’t settle and then go back to the status quo ante. It can’t pay off O'Bannon and Russell and Robertson and all the rest of them, and then start business as usual again as regards Cody Zeller or Kenny Boynton. If it loses the lawsuit, the effect on the NCAA's financial structure would be profound. About which, at this point, the device has not yet been invented capable of measuring how little I care. Instead, I stand aside and listen to the stomping and the hooting from the thick Cretaceous rain forest, which is just loud enough to drown out the high whistling sound of something coming down from the sky.

I'm not sure comparing the NCAA to the dinosaurs makes much sense. The dinosaurs were wiped out entirely and a new world order replaced their presence. The elimination of the NCAA is more akin to the extinction of the Dodo bird: the weakest, most ineffectual player on the evolutionary stage will saunter off while the crazy dudes with guns and hunting dogs remain on top.

Or maybe Pierce is right about the extent of the mass extinction... but he forgets that the elite athletic departments and conferences aren't the dinosaurs, they’re the cockroaches. I just don't trust these folks to go quietly into the night. They'll let the NCAA take this hit regarding past licensing of "classic team" likenesses and then come up with some new regime where the individual schools capture all the revenue from licensing their own classic teams through bi-lateral agreements with manufacturers to create some semblance of a competitive market for these likenesses and go on exploiting the next generation of future former athletes.

Would that survive legal scrutiny? Maybe not, but the big power players in the sport will happily drag out the issue as long as possible to capture as much profit as possible, even at the expense of the weaker sports schools who would lose out without the NCAA dividing the licensing pot. But for a major athletic department, this is no time for communism! There's already a roadmap out there to ditch the NCAA and kill off the weaker sports schools leaching off the strong.

So the NCAA might die, but for the players themselves, the motto would be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

from the oops dept

Hollywood already succeeded in getting UK courts to force ISPs to block access to Newzbin2, a Usenet service that the industry insists could only have been used for infringement. And that led Newzbin2 to eventually shut down. But, the Hollywood studios want more. They've been trying to get money from the operator of Newzbin2, demanding any and all proceeds. But, surprisingly, that effort failed yesterday as the judge noted they had no rights to such profits and, importantly that just handing over the proceeds from a business like that might create chilling effects and stifle innovation:

On [Hollywood's] case, a copyright owner's claim would not even be limited to the infringer's profits: in principle, the entire proceeds of sale would be held on trust for the copyright owner. That might both be unfair and stultify enterprise. The proceeds of an infringement might be out of all proportion to the profits generated (e.g. because of the cost of raw materials used in the infringing product). It might not seem just for even a deliberate wrongdoer to have to pay the copyright owner the amount of his gross receipts, and an infringer need not have known that he was breaching copyright. Further, were Mr Spearman's [lawyer for the studios] submissions correct, a person might be deterred from pursuing an activity if he perceived there to be even a small risk that the activity would involve a breach of copyright or other intellectual property rights. As was submitted by Miss Lambert, that could have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity.

Basically, the judge is recognizing that the entertainment industry is completely overvaluing the content, and arguing that any and all money made is 100% due to the content, and not due to any other factors. And that's ridiculous. The judge used some analogies:

Suppose, say, that a market trader sells infringing DVDs, among other goods, from a stall he has set up on someone else's land without consent. The owner of the land could not, as I see it, make any proprietary claim to the proceeds of the trading or even the profit from it. There is no evident reason why the owner of the copyright in the DVDs should be in a better position in this respect.

The Motion Picture Association responded to this loss by saying that this is just "one particular point" in the case, and that it is planning to appeal. And, either way, they point out, what really matters is that Hollywood shut down Newzbin2. Yes, Hollywood killed another service that had figured out how to distribute content better than Hollywood. And, in the end, isn't that all that really matters? So long as Hollywood can keep killing services who do things better than Hollywood, the rest is just gravy.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The topic of death and suicide has been floating around the media lately -- from the gun control proposals to try to prevent future school shootings to the prominent suicide of internet activist, Aaron Swartz. So to fight some of these negative thoughts, here are just a few articles on happiness.

Today, we're making it easier for people to financially contribute to Ubuntu if they want to. By introducing a 'contribute' screen as part of the desktop download process, people can choose to financially support different aspects of Canonical's work: from gaming and apps, developing the desktop, phone and tablet, to co-ordination of upstreams or supporting Ubuntu flavours. It's important to note that Ubuntu remains absolutely free, financial contribution remains optional and it is not required in order to download the software.

By allowing Ubuntu users to choose which elements of Ubuntu they're most excited about, we'll get direct feedback on which favourite features or projects deserve the bulk of our attention. We're letting users name their price -- depending on the value that they put on the operating system or other aspects of our work. That price can, of course, be zero -- but every last cent helps make Ubuntu better.

As this notes, even if people don't offer money, their views on what's important to them can still be gathered, and that's valuable information for developers who need to prioritize their work.

In principle, letting people support new features of interest sounds like a good idea, since it gives users a chance to vote with their wallets. But it comes in the wake of a plan to let people search for items on sites like Amazon from within the Ubuntu operating system, for which Canonical would presumably get paid if purchases were made as a result. As the hundreds of comments on the blog of Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Canonical and Ubuntu, indicate, this has raised a number of concerns about privacy and the direction of the Ubuntu project.

Some might see both moves as evidence that Canonical still isn't making as much money from the Ubuntu ecosystem as it needs to, and that Shuttleworth is looking to bolster income. Four years ago, he admitted that Canonical was "not close" to breaking even, and that it would "require time and ongoing investment" to make it do so. Given Ubuntu's place as probably the most popular GNU/Linux distribution, users must hope that Shuttleworth will still be happy to invest in Canonical, and hence in Ubuntu, for a while yet. Perhaps that's another good reason for Ubuntu fans to start paying at least some of the development costs under the new scheme.

Have you heard of Donnie McClurkin, French Montana or Grupo Bryndis? If you haven't you're not alone. They are artists whose sales ranks on Amazon are 4,752, 17,000 and 183,187, respectively. These are all working artists who live well outside the mainstream - no steady rotation on broadcast radio, no high profile opening slots on major tours, no front page placement in online retail. What they also have in common is a steady income from Pandora. In the next twelve months Pandora is on track to pay performance fees of $100,228, $138,567 and $114,192, respectively, for the music we play to their large and fast-growing audiences on Pandora.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. For over two thousand artists Pandora will pay over $10,000 dollars each over the next 12 months (including one of my favorites, the late jazz pianist Oscar Peterson), and for more than 800 we'll pay over $50,000, more than the income of the average American household. For top earners like Coldplay, Adele, Wiz Khalifa, Jason Aldean and others Pandora is already paying over $1 million each. Drake and Lill Wayne are fast approaching a $3 million annual rate each.

Of course, while all of this is happening, Pandora is not yet profitable, and may never be profitable -- as it is required, under current webcasting rates, to pay about 50% of its revenue out as royalties (while terrestrial radio and satellite radio get to pay much, much less). As Tim Westergren has pointed out, because of the crazy rates, plenty of other webcasting operations have just left the business entirely -- meaning that there just aren't that many players in this space, because it just isn't profitable for the companies, even as they're developing important new revenue streams for artists.

I'll have more on this later, but it often seems that legacy players really have no concept of "the golden goose." They assume that any tech company, who is moderately successful in getting users, simply should be bled dry, paying out just about everything to artists, with nothing left for the companies themselves. They think that the music is the entire value, and the service provided is not very important. And yet, without that service, none of that money would come in at all. At some point, the legacy guys are going to have to realize that they're better off having a healthy ecosystem of services, rather than squeezing the absolute highest rates out of these companies, in a way where they can't survive.

from the one-sentence-between-'darling'-and-'pariah' dept

we will feed you beer, hug/high-five you up and down (pick your poison), give you merch, and thank you mightily for adding to the big noise we are planning to make.

That was Amanda Palmer's offer to instrumentalists willing to join her on stage during tour appearances. And then the internet exploded for most of five days before Palmer reappeared to say this:

me and my band have discussed it at length. and we have decided we should pay all of our guest musicians. we have the power to do it, and we’re going to do it. (in fact, we started doing it three shows ago.)

So. Here's the deal. I had 1,600 words assembled in an orderly fashion and was gently (but firmly) herding them through the Amanda Palmer "free as in volunteer musicians" minefield. It was quite possible many of these words, some multisyllable, some a bit sweary, wouldn't make it all the way across. But, it was this close to being a "thing," a monumental defense of Amanda Palmer's absolute right to ask for fans to pitch in on tour despite her having $1.2 million worth of Kickstarting (mostly spent) in her hip pocket.

Because she had every right, no matter how seemingly large the amount at her disposal, to ask people to volunteer to be her sidemen/women. The problem was her critics (and lord, there were quite a few of those) were blinded by all the money she had, especially when comparing it to the money they had. Here's Bob Lefsetz, breaking it down:

They believe she should pay.

Because she raised a million dollars on Kickstarter and they didn’t!

Amanda ankled her major label deal, she makes money on Twitter, she uses the new technologies to both reach people and profit and they don’t like it. They could join in, but then they might fail, and they wouldn’t be able to sit at home at bitch.

But before the (probably) bloated opus could hit the front page, Palmer decided to shell out cash to her volunteers, freeing up the money by shuttling money back and forth between line items, robbing Video to pay Sax Players, as it were.

my management team tweaked and reconfigured financials, pulling money from this and that other budget (mostly video) and moving it to the tour budget. all of the money we took out of those budgets is going to the crowd-sourced musicians fund. we are going to pay the volunteer musicians every night. even though they volunteered their time for beer, hugs, merch, free tickets, and love: we’ll now also hand them cash.

Was it the right thing to do? No. It wasn't the wrong thing to do, either. It was simply a thing to do. When you're trying to tour and all anyone wants to talk about is whether or not the VOLUNTEER sax player is going to get paid scale or at least, more than hugs, it's often simpler to do the thing that drops the ongoing dialog down to a manageable dull roar, or at least a trifle more supportive roar.

Not paying was never wrong. Take away the crowdfunding aspect (which seems to be what the critics get hung up on) and Palmer's offer is every diehard fan's dream. Get on stage with your favorite artist! Get beer/hugs! In any other situation, there's no controversy. Only people who get to live their dreams for a night and those who get to see others living their dreams. Try these hypothetical offers on for size:

- Lady Gaga, major label artist, sends out an invite for interested fans to jump onstage and perform for a couple of tracks in exchange for discarded wigs, unused wardrobe and travel bottles of Ciroc. (Feel free to substitute a major label artist you can actually tolerate for Lady Gaga, if need be.)

- Indie legend Weezer sends out an open invitation for interested fans to perform onstage with them at their tour stops in exchange for corrective lenses, sweaters and "Pinkerton" CDs rescued from the cutout bin.

- Label-free artist Jonathan Coulton sends out an open invitation for interested fans to perform interpretative dances during his live appearances in exchange for retweets and a 4-song EP dedicated to you and recorded backstage while you wait.

Viewed this way, the same invitation Palmer made sounds like pure gold for diehard fans. Each of these artists is offering a chance for local artists to become local heroes, if only for a night. In exchange for their time, effort and expertise, the contributing fans will walk away $0 richer in direct monetary terms. But who would turn that down? No fan is going to tell one of their favorite bands, "Thanks, but I'd rather be paid." Or, "Not interested. I'd rather watch from a safe distance away."

Palmer's offer is different. It's not different because her offer is any different than the hypotheticals posed above. It's different because of one thing: $1.2 million in transparently spent, crowdsourced dollars.

If Lady Gaga declines to pay supporting volunteers, it's the label's fault for not spotting her enough money to do the show the way she envisioned it. If Weezer does it, it's because working for indie labels means tight margins. If Coulton does it, it's because he has to finance his own touring via ticket, album and merch sales.

But, because Amanda Palmer pre-financed her tour, a majority of her detractors saw "$1.2 million" and wondered if she's blown it all on ridiculous stuff like, well, who knows exactly, but presumably wasteful, more-money-than-brains accoutrements. The debacle turned musicians into accountants and Palmer's actual accountants into a "crazy moebius strip of waste."

But that's ridiculous. Beyond the fact that the source of the money does make her offer wrong, there's the poor underlying argument from some musicians that there's something "wrong," or at least "diminishing" about playing for free. There isn't. Everybody does it.

if my years working as as street performer taught me anything, they taught me to accept help in every way, to never be too proud or afraid to ask for it. i never got pissed at a passerby for not throwing change in my hat. i stood there knowing that maybe 15 people later, maybe 20, maybe 100…someone would. it’s literally an opposite strategy from someone deciding that they, on principle, won’t gig for free.

i’ve built my life as a musician, like many many people in rock and roll, playing for free….a LOT.
or playing for beer.
playing for exposure.
playing for fun.
playing just to be able to sell merch.
playing to do somebody a favor.
playing a benefit to help a cause.

It's also important to note that Palmer was only asking for a little bit of the artists' time. She wasn't asking them to tour with her gratis or even perform the entire show.

we’re looking for professional-ish horns and strings for EVERY CITY to hop up on stage with us for a couple of tunes.

Palmer's transparency worked against her. A full breakdown of where that $1.2 million is going has only prompted questions on the validity of some of the line items. Her response that it would cost $35,000 to secure the additional musicians for the entire tour is greeted with "but, but... $1.2 million." It almost seems as though fans were happier when all the money was raised and spent in complete opacity. When the sausage making apparatus was still hidden, and the money routed through middlemen, being invited to jam with your idols was a dream come true. Now, somehow, it's a slap in the face to struggling musicians everywhere?

Artists performing for free do not diminish the art form or drag all other similar artists into a race for the bottom, pricewise. Neither does one artist asking other artists to perform for free. There's nothing disingenuous about this offer. Anyone who thought they were being taken advantage of needed to do nothing more than not respond the offer.

Were these volunteers being screwed? If they were, it was being done so skillfully and pleasurably that they never noticed.

when we handed the musicians their surprise cash backstage in new orleans the other last night, they laughed like mad and said “after ALL THAT, you're going TO PAY US??!!

moreover: i feel like we accidentally put ALL of our volunteer musicians into a weird situation that they didn’t bargain for….they unwittingly signed into a kerfuffle they never asked to join. all they wanted to was to hop on stage, rock out, and drink beer with us, etc.

so you all know: when this all started going down last week, jherek sent an email out to his current list of volunteers telling them that we totally understood if all this controversy was weirding them out. and we gave them an opportunity to pull out, no hard feelings.

since this started, not a single musician has pulled out.

One of the saddest aspects about this whole debacle is that the artists who did decide to play for free were treated as traitors to The Cause simply because they didn't demand to be "treated with respect", respect in this case being dollars. That's some ugly artist-on-artist hate right there. Not that there weren't other sad aspects, what with the internet being involved and all:

I can’t tell you how many “you’re such a stupid cunt” and “i’d pay to travel just to fuck up your gig…if i played violin” tweets i’ve seen in the past few days...

Lots of criticism along the lines of "I'm a classically trained musician and it's hard enough to find paying gigs without rich musicians refusing to pay us for our contributions." Well, it's probably true that it's hard for a violinist or cellist or sax player to find paying gigs, but in no way did Palmer's "unpaid gig" offer hurt you unless you yourself accepted... but then, if you hate the idea so much, why the fuck would you? Just to make a point? Weird thought process. It's as if they believe every artist looking for a cellist or whatever will just point at Amanda Kickstarting Palmer and say, "She doesn't pay, therefore neither do we."

The problem with this "NO UNPAID GIGS" stance is that it only ends up hurting the idealist who take it. You might believe that if enough people turn down unpaid gigs (and make a lot of angry noises about it), then at some point, those needed instrumentalists will run out of artists willing to work for free. If you can manage to hold together a career long enough for every invitation to come accompanied with payment, good on you. You've beaten some very long odds.

Most of this discussion is now academic, as Palmer will be paying all contributing tour musicians from this point forward. That's what living in public does. Transparency is double-edged and every Palmer detractor was seemingly a music school grad with an accounting degree. To her critics, this offer "proves" that her breakdown of the $1.2 million was filled with waste. Now they can pat themselves on the back for righting a wrong and turning "instrumentalist" back into a paying job.

But Palmer paying cash doesn't make the world better for struggling artists, just as paying in beer didn't make it worse. If someone wants to reach the million-dollar-Kickstarter level, they need a whole lot more than one artist paying other artists. And most of these artists who decried the previous situation just aren't up for the level of commitment involved. In fact, most human beings aren't up for it. Living like Amanda F. Palmer isn't easy, and the rewards only come after years and years of killing yourself day in and day out:

You’re just not willing to work that hard.

That the only thing holding you back is you. Amanda does not know the word “no”. And every effort is an investment in her career. Money is secondary. She wanted to raise a million bucks on Kickstarter, did, and now it’s almost all accounted for, profit is next to nothing.

If she sleeps, it’s not for long. I felt lazy just being in her presence. But that’s what it takes to make it today. Hard work. Are you prepared?

And hard work is not e-mailing journalists who don’t care, it’s not badgering people to watch your YouTube clip and like you on Facebook, it’s doing something so good people are drawn to you.

Palmer has delivered the narrative, lived out in public, that if you're willing to run flat-out, day after day, for more than a decade, you can get to this point. And the response from so many musicians to her open invitation was basically: "You made it to the top. Now, lift the rest of us up." You won. Now you owe us.

Everyone got the same offer from Palmer. There's no shame in saying "no." But there's also nothing wrong with saying "yes." Artists, including Palmer herself, have done unpaid gigs for exposure, charity, or simply because they were dying to perform and doing it for free was the only way to get it done. Either way, it's up to the individual. Someone else accepting a perceived screwing from an artist that a thousand armchair accountants have already decided has the money to pay in no way diminishes your chances as an artist. These chances remain what they have been, and will be, for years in either direction: slim to none.

In the end, I'm neither relieved nor disappointed this turned out the way it did. I'm glad that Palmer will be able to concentrate on what she'd clearly rather be doing: touring and entertaining. The Kickstarter money was freely given to her during that campaign, but apparently had plenty of strings attached once she started talking about unpaid gigs. I get the feeling that many of her detractors didn't contribute to the fundraising effort (indeed, it's doubtful that many had even listened to her music -- Steve Albini, along with other commenters in that thread, clearly stated that he hadn't), but it certainly didn't stop them from having strong opinions on how an artist they'd never listened to should spend money they didn't contribute.

I guess it sort of works out for everybody -- musicians get paid and Palmer gets back to work. But no wrongs were righted and the long, hard road to success didn't get any new shortcuts.

from the unfortunate dept

Back in June, we wrote about the European Telecommunications Network Operators Association (ETNO) and its "proposal" to basically tax the internet, which they're hoping the ITU will adopt later this year. The thinking here is not hard to figure out. These are old school (either state run or formerly state run) telco monopolies not used to having to compete or innovate. They look at the success of various internet companies, and get jealous and -- like the big entertainment legacy players -- start thinking "hey, some of that should be my money -- this is unfair!" And, so they come up with schemes and proposals like this -- trying to effectively get regulators to force a revenue shift from those companies that innovated and found business models that work, over to the lazy telcos who sat back, fat and happy with their monopoly, refusing to innovate. It reminds me of Andy Kessler's description of companies that create value vs. those that lock up value. One goes out and builds something new that the market wants... and the other runs to the government and asks them to put in place policies that divert revenue to them.

With that in mind, check out ETNO's latest proposal from ETNO for the ITU to consider (pdf) later this year. And you notice all sorts of questionable claims, all designed to basically say: we haven't adapted, and so regulators need to force money from actual innovators into our bank accounts:

The telecommunications market and the telecoms industry as a whole is undergoing a
fundamental shift. Catalysed by the availability of higher bandwidth connectivity, new
applications and services are being enabled that go far beyond the traditional services of
voice calling. In both the consumer and enterprise segments, services such as Voice over IP
(VoIP), social networking, instant messaging and the rise of ‘apps’ have changed the way
customers use their mobile and fixed connections. This development is significant and
telecoms operators need to adapt and rebalance their tariff structure between voice and
data services.

While broadband definitely is a key "catalyst" note how they set this up so that they can claim that it's really all about them... and then how the "tariff structure" needs to be "rebalanced." It's not about how they need to rethink their own business models or innovate or anything along those lines. It's about asking regulators to divert money that others are making to them.

The aim of the ETNO proposal is to contribute to the achievement of a more sustainable
model for the Internet. ETNO is not asking for increased regulatory intervention but aims to
establish a reference for commercial negotiations. The current interconnection model has
some shortcomings that need to be addressed. Today there is a huge disproportion amongst
revenues and a clear shift of value towards players (Over the Top players -- OTT) who are not
contributing to network investment. Traffic and revenue flows need to be realigned in order
to assure the economic viability of infrastructure investment and the sustainability of the
whole ecosystem. The revision of the ITRs offers a unique opportunity to propose high‐level
principles for IP interconnection.

Yup. "More sustainable" means "more money to the telcos." "Disproportion amongst revenues and a clear shift" towards online service providers is basically "the folks providing the services that make our connections valuable are making more money than we'd like, and we deserve some of that." And the idea that they're "not contributing to network investment" is a red herring. The big internet companies pay a ton for the bandwidth they use. And that money goes to the telcos. If they're not investing it in their networks, then perhaps they should explore why. Any time you hear a company say that "traffic and revenue flows need to be realigned in order to assure the economic viability," you know you're dealing with a company (or industry) that has failed to adapt and is asking the government to bail them out by taking money from those who did adapt. To claim that this isn't asking for regulatory intervention is laughable, since the whole process is one giant regulatory intervention. If this was just about commercial negotiations, this wouldn't be an issue. They'd just go out and negotiate.

ETNO believes that the revised ITRs should acknowledge the challenges of the new
Internet economy and the principles that fair compensation is received for carried traffic
and operators’ revenues should not be disconnected from the investment needs caused by
rapid Internet traffic growth. The ITRs should be flexible enough so as to further encourage
future growth and the sustainable development of telecoms markets, while respecting the
guiding principles that led to the successful development of the Internet: private sector
leadership, independent multi‐stakeholder governance and commercial agreements.
ETNO is certainly not asking for any change to the current Internet Governance model which
is based on private sector leadership and multi‐stakeholder dialogue.

Whenever a company is asking regulators for "fair compensation," it's basically them saying "our business model is flopping due to changes in the market, and we need you to prop us up." If ETNO really isn't asking for a change in the current internet governance model, then, um, why is it asking regulators to "rebalance" things and change who gets what cut of the revenue?

ETNO wants to avoid decisions that would prevent new business models from emerging or
that would hamper differentiated offers, hence limiting consumer choice. The risk of
undesirable economic and technical regulation of operator rates, terms and conditions will
be much higher if the development of the Internet continues to be jeopardized by the lack of
sustainability and/or by the lack of end‐customer satisfaction.

ETNO members have reiterated on many occasions their commitment to an open
Internet and to continue enabling consumers to access services and applications of
their choice as well as being completely transparent about terms, conditions and
limitations. As recognized by the European Commission, operators should not be
prevented from developing differentiated offers based on customer needs, in
addition to the best effort Internet. It is important to note that nobody will be cut
off from the Internet as the best effort Internet will continue to exist and to
evolve. New business models based on differentiated offers will ultimately create
more choice for consumers.

This is very close to "nice internet system you got there... you wouldn't want anything to, you know, happen, to it, now would you?" Basically, if regulators don't divert more money from successful internet companies to lazy telco monopolists, well, then we might just have to "jeopardize" the network.

There's a lot more like that in there. They're trying very, very carefully to use the language of "internet freedom" and innovation, in order to then explain why the ITU should put in place a proposal that effective forces local regulators to divert money from the companies who innovate, to the lazy monopolists. This is one of the reasons why so many folks interested in keeping the internet truly free and open are quite concerned about ETNO's proposal. It's not designed to benefit the internet or to encourage innovation. It's just designed to divert money from those who innovate to the telcos who haven't had to innovate.

from the that's-not-how-labels-work dept

We see this every single time the music labels (usually RIAA or IFPI) "win" a big case against an alleged "pirate" site. They're awarded a bunch of money... and none of it goes to the artists. We've heard about it happening with Limewire and YouTube (though that was payoff to prevent a lawsuit, rather than the result of a lawsuit). And, once again, that appears to be happening with The Pirate Bay. TorrentFreak has the leaked document from the IFPI showing that it plans to reinvest whatever it gets... in the IFPI to continue its "anti-piracy efforts," such as going after other sites to get similar settlements for the same reason.

To be clear, the IFPI notes that it's unlikely to collect much, if any, of the money in this particular case, because (contrary to what it claimed all along), it certainly doesn't appear that TPB made very much money -- and the people sued "have no traceable assets." However, the ruling was clear that the money being awarded to the labels was "to compensate artists and rightsholders for the losses they suffered. But that's not how it would be used:

“There is an agreement that any recovered funds will be paid to IFPI Sweden and IFPI London for use in future anti-piracy activities,” IFPI writes.

TorrentFreak quotes Peter Sunde, one of the four who was convicted, noting that this is a case where money was directly promised to artists and not delivered. That seems a hell of a lot more like "theft" than anything that he did:

“They say that people who download give money to thieves – but if someone actually ends up paying (in this case: three individuals) then it’s been paid for. So who’s the thief when they don’t give the money to the artists?”

According to Sunde the news doesn’t come as a surprise.

“As far as I know, no money ever won in a lawsuit by IFPI or the RIAA has even gone to any actual artist,” Sunde says.

Indeed. I am unaware of any of the proceeds from any such lawsuits ever making it back to artists.

from the enjoy dept

Charles Carreon dropped his highly questionable case against Matthew Inman, IndieGoGo, the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Fund last week. It was pretty clear he was going to lose (and in a big, bad way). However, he claimed "victory" because, to avoid further complications, Inman made sure that all the money went directly from IndieGoGo and/or Paypal to the charities, so there was never any question of what he might do with the money. Of course, as part of his original pitch, he had promised to photograph all of the money raised as cash and send it to Funnyjunk. Inman got around the rules by taking out the same amount of money from the bank, and photographing it in a variety of different poses, some of which I'm assuming Inman won't mind if we reproduce here.

First up, the money in a duffel bag and laid out on a table, including a shot of Inman in front of it.

Then there's the fun stuff, including arranging the money to show a few special messages, mainly directed at Charles Carreon, even if the original focus was on FunnyJunk.

And all of it concludes with a package which is apparently being sent to Charles Carreon:

I will admit to being a bit confused about one key thing. Inman had originally promised that the photo and the drawing were to be sent to FunnyJunk. Of course, in all of this mess, it didn't seem like FunnyJunk officially said anything, and I don't recall FunnyJunk's owner ever being identified. Instead, everything shifted over to being about Carreon, due to Carreon's behavior. Remember, even though the threats were technically "from" FunnyJunk, the eventual lawsuit was from Carreon alone. We had noted that Carreon appeared to be wrong in claiming that the drawing of the mother and the bear was about his mother, when the text of the campaign seemed clearly to be indicating the mother was "FunnyJunk's" mother. Of course, if no one knows who FunnyJunk actually is, perhaps it's reasonable to ship this stuff to FunnyJunk's "lawyer," which would be Charles Carreon.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some people hate carrying around coins and just save them up in jars or throw them into water fountains. There is a never-ending discussion over whether or not to stop printing the US penny, but some folks just don't like rounding to the nearest nickel. Some new coins have been extremely popular (eg. the US state quarters), and all sorts of organizations are starting to print new kinds of collectible coins. Here are just a few examples of some not-so-rare coins.